Conservation’s Dark Side: Power Dynamics and Human Rights Abuses in Africa

The recent news that Prince Harry is stepping down from the board of African Parks has sparked renewed debate about the true cost of conservation efforts. At the heart of this controversy lies a complex web of power dynamics, human rights abuses, and a colonial mindset that pervades the organization’s approach to wildlife protection.

African Parks’ business model, known as delegated management, allows governments to tap into international funding, expertise, and personnel by outsourcing responsibilities such as conservation, infrastructure development, tourism, and anti-poaching operations. This arrangement grants African Parks’ rangers state-like powers within the parks they manage, including the use of force to protect wildlife.

The use of force raises important questions about accountability and transparency in conservation efforts. Journalist Olivier van Beemen has extensively documented allegations of human rights abuses against African Parks for years. The worst incidents, such as those reported by members of the indigenous Baka community at Odzala-Kokoua National Park in 2023, are a stark reminder that conservation efforts can come into conflict with local communities.

The Omnia Strategy investigation commissioned by African Parks in response to these allegations is a case study in opacity and lack of accountability. Despite acknowledging instances of human rights abuses two years after the initial reports emerged, the organization has refused to make the full investigation report public, even to the government of the Republic of Congo with whom they operate under agreement.

Prince Harry’s association with African Parks is also telling. Van Beemen suggests that Harry’s role in attracting media attention and potential donors has become a liability for both parties, given the increasingly problematic nature of the organization’s activities. While African Parks may argue that Harry’s departure is simply part of a board reshuffle, van Beemen’s portrayal of the relationship between the royal and the NGO is one of mutual benefit – with the prince’s fame serving as a PR boon to the organization.

African Parks’ approach to conservation mirrors colonial-era power dynamics by treating local communities who hunt animals for their own consumption as poachers. This perpetuates a paternalistic and often violent approach to wildlife protection, as van Beemen’s research has shown. The brutal treatment of individuals taken into custody on these grounds is a disturbing consequence.

The legacy of colonialism in Africa is complex and contentious, but it is clear that African Parks’ actions are not immune to criticism. Founded by Dutch businessman Paul Fentener van Vlissingen, who reportedly held Africans in low regard, the organization’s history is also marked by controversy. Van Beemen’s book has sparked a wider conversation about the need for greater accountability and transparency in conservation efforts – one that cannot be ignored.

As African Parks responds to these allegations, its commitment to human rights and community engagement will face intense scrutiny. The question on everyone’s mind is whether this will mark a turning point for conservation efforts in Africa – or simply another chapter in a long history of power dynamics gone wrong.

The shadow of colonialism looms large over African Parks’ actions, but it is up to the organization itself to prove that its approach to wildlife protection can be different. By acknowledging past failures and committing to greater transparency and accountability, African Parks can work towards building trust with local communities and ensuring that conservation efforts are not a zero-sum game of power and control. The stakes are high – for the people affected by these actions, for the future of Africa’s protected areas, and for the credibility of conservation as a whole.